Tarun Vyas v. Joseph Walters

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 2026
• Docket: 26-6242
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6242 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6242

TARUN KUMAR VYAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH WALTERS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:25-cv-00002-EKD-CKM)

Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: May 1, 2026

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tarun Kumar Vyas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-6242 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Tarun Kumar Vyas seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motions to

supplement and amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, denying his motions for bail, and

denying without prejudice various other motions he filed relating to his § 2254 petition.

Preliminarily, we grant Vyas’s motions to amend, supplement, and exceed length

limitations for the informal brief. We deny all Vyas’s other pending motions, including

his motions to adopt the record and for assignment of counsel.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The portion of the district

court’s order denying Vyas’s motions for bail is immediately appealable under the

collateral order doctrine. See, e.g., Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46,

1345 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (adopting rule and collecting cases). The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A); see also Pagan, 353 F.3d at 1346; Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 685-

86 (4th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that, in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings, an immediately

appealable collateral order is considered a final order for purposes of certificate of

appealability requirement).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

2 USCA4 Appeal: 26-6242 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies

relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of

a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vyas has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal as to that portion of the district court’s order. The remainder of the order Vyas seeks

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED